AppleTV: no longer a hobby

[bigpatky]

Just to clarify, I'm saying this about the average family living room and not geeked out badass home theaters.
When Apple decides to make their push with the TV, it's gonna be into the living room. Not for the 150" home theaters.
The bandwidth issues and sizes on the average family screen are not in dire need of 1080p at this time. 1080p is a bit ahead of it's time for the masses.
Most people have just been going digital and into HD in the past few years, and still. Most people also have an average of 40-50" sets too.

i'm just saying it doesn't take much in terms of upgraded hardware to make it capable of full 1080p to please, what may be the minority, but still a large number of people and potential buyers. if apple waits until 1080p is the standard, it will be too late. heck, we've had 802.11n wireless in macbooks for years now, long before they were the standard or many people could take advantage of it. it didn't take much to add it in. in fact the masses, mom and pop, still don't know what wireless-n is, let alone use it. yet, the hardware is there. no one is arguing for everyone to switch to 1080p streaming. i'd like the choice, and i guess i've made mine by purchasing other alternatives, despite really enjoying apple products. meanwhile i'm waiting for them to update the hardware to something more suited to 2010 media standards.

 

[msavwah]

i'm just saying it doesn't take much in terms of upgraded hardware to make it capable of full 1080p to please, what may be the minority, but still a large number of people and potential buyers. if apple waits until 1080p is the standard, it will be too late. heck, we've had 802.11n wireless in macbooks for years now, long before they were the standard or many people could take advantage of it. it didn't take much to add it in. in fact the masses, mom and pop, still don't know what wireless-n is, let alone use it. yet, the hardware is there. no one is arguing for everyone to switch to 1080p streaming. i'd like the choice, and i guess i've made mine by purchasing other alternatives, despite really enjoying apple products. meanwhile i'm waiting for them to update the hardware to something more suited to 2010 media standards.

I agree.
It would be an easy upgrade on the hardware, and it would please a lot of folks to know they are using that 'p' on their set.
I won't be surprised nor will I complain either way though.

 

[fpnc]

Right now 1080p content isn't so much of an issue on the Apple TV as is its limitation of 24fps playback on HD content. What this means is that iTunes is now selling BBC shows as "HD" that are encoded at either 960x540 or 960x720 (anamorphic) because they can't go over 24fps for full 720p content (1280x720). The 960x540 content is particularly galling considering that iTunes is selling it at the normal "HD" premium prices (compare that to a DVD which can be encoded at 720x480 -- not much difference and probably not worthy of the "HD" designation).

Furthermore, if someone is making home movies on an HD video camera and they are recording at 30fps there is no way they can even play these at HD resolutions unless they re-encode at 24fps which will likely introduce notable "judder" in the playback. The only other option is to reduce the resolution to 960x540 which is what is also happening on those BBC shows.

Therefore, Apple needs to do the following:

1.) Hire at least two more good engineers and get the current Apple TV hardware to work with 30fps 720p video (that would be about a 25% improvement which might be possible with the current GPU/hardware). Note that the iPad now lists support for 30fps 720p content so maybe Apple is at least moving in that direction (since the iPad and the Apple TV are the only two devices that allow full access to all of the HD content that is on the iTunes Store).

2.) Offer the full iTunes Store experience on the Apple TV. There are still some features in the Mac/PC version of the iTunes Store that are not available on the Apple TV. One notable (but admittedly recent) example is the Rotten Tomato reviews that were added to iTunes just last week. The Apple TV should also be able to easily access all of the movie bundles and special deals that are advertised on the Mac/PC version of the iTunes Store (for example, you still can't purchase the Lord of the Rings movie bundle on the Apple TV -- there appears to be no way to directly access that offer on the Apple TV).

3.) Offer options for more internal storage and/or allow attachment of external hard drives (the latter -- external storage -- could be enable on the current hardware but my guess is that the content providers don't want this done because they are afraid that it will open up opportunities for the pirating of HD content -- that is, the restriction on offering external storage may be part of Apple's licensing deals with the studios). This change should also allow for secure backup that is managed by the Apple TV itself. Given this set of changes and with some simple file management options the Apple TV could become completely standalone (no real need to link to a host PC/Mac).

4.) Introduce new Apple TV hardware that offers 1080p decode for people who want to view their HD home movies at full resolution. This system should also have a notably faster CPU to better handle very large media libraries and the iTunes Extras and iTunes LP content (which can be pretty clunky on the current hardware).

With just these four changes (and continued improvements in the range and prices of the iTunes content itself) the Apple TV would be just fine for years to come. It's interesting that it might be possible for Apple to bring items 1, 2, and 3 to the current Apple TV with just a software update. I'd be pretty amazed and very pleased if they did, but I don't even know if it would be technically possible.

One other thing that bothers me about the Apple TV marketing is that Apple is still advertising USB as one of the product's features. However, you can't use the Apple TV's USB port for anything unless you hack the Apple TV software. This seems like a blatant case of false advertising to me. Add that to selling 960x540 content as "HD" and you can see that there are some real problems with the marketing of the Apple TV.

I want to end by saying that I think the Apple TV is a nice product and I use it almost every day (and on occasions for several hours in a single day). IMO, it's still one of the better TV-oriented media devices on the market and contrary to what some would like to suggest it has actually done fairly well in the marketplace (estimates of over 6 million units sold, which isn't bad in comparison to the direct competition which in most cases has sold only in the hundreds of thousands of units -- excluding the gaming consoles).

 

[fpnc]

1080p is not that big a deal. Sure it's the best consumer standard, but 720p and 1080i are awesome. I have a 61" HDTV and it's all fine. I won't be losing any sleep over lack of 1080p.
I really think it is like the whole spec sheet vs user experience thing...

You may be misunderstanding the issue on the current Apple TV. The Apple TV can already output 1080p (or 1080i for that matter). The problem is that the Apple TV can only decode up to 24fps 720p. Thus, while it can upscale and output 1080i/p the only HD content that it can actually decode tops out at 720p.

 

[wombat888]

Show 100 people the same movie on the same set in 720p and 1080p and probably 5 or 8 of them will notice a difference. But that's not the point. In 2010, there's an expectation (based on marketing of the "Full HD" phrase) that things that can't handle 1080p are inferior. The next-gen Apple TV needs to be fully 1080p capable for marketing success.

 

[msavwah]

You may be misunderstanding the issue on the current Apple TV. The Apple TV can already output 1080p (or 1080i for that matter). The problem is that the Apple TV can only decode up to 24fps 720p. Thus, while it can upscale and output 1080i/p the only HD content that it can actually decode tops out at 720p.

I'm rolling in iTunes content, and also comparing resolutions from different content. Bluray from my ps3, netflix streaming, xbox, appletv iTunes HD content. It all looks equally great on my set Even upscaled dvd's are impressive looking.

I think if you put all the puzzle pieces in place: no blu Ray on Mac, the Tv limitation, the iTunes HD resolution content there is no true 1080p res across the board. Now enter one billion dollar complex, and plans unknown with studios, isps and fill in the blanks.
Once all of the pieces are in line that is when the iTunes and AppleTV full HD 1080p standard may become a reality.
I think they are waiting for all those ducks to get in a nice row, then hit a grand slam with the high standards, added features, upgraded hardware all at once.

What puzzles me is how does Apple get the isp's to play ball assuming the movie industry does too? These are in large part the same folks not so happy about losing their criminal cable tv legal monopolies (I know, bad writing)

Maybe partnerships?
Apple and the major isp's bang out a revenue sharing deal to steer them 180 degrees away from things like data caps and throttling. It would have to be across the board and freedom from tyranny for all or then we are into the ugly net neutrality mess. Where does Apple stand here?

The first step in getting an install base of tens of millions of these things is to clear all the roadblocks. And to do that just may mean partnering up and making the movie people and the cable, and Internet people warm up to this concept. Steves gotta really sell these companies and organizations here.

Or hey maybe the Apple fat pipe is the answer.

Apple had it's golden opportunity back when napster set the music industry chasing it's tail. Steve Jobs stepped in and provided a great solution for everyone. Had it not been for that none of us would be here having these apple discussions today. The iPod and with it iTunes have been the platform for success on which every new major apple product has launched and grown out of.

But where is the crisis for video? Other than the one where it's already been legally digitized and distributed down the fiber optic backbone of the very ones who's antiquated rotten business model is being threatened.

I bet it's been a hell of a fight for years while appletv has been a hobby to pass the time, and forever getting those ducks in rows.

 

[msavwah]

Show 100 people the same movie on the same set in 720p and 1080p and probably 5 or 8 of them will notice a difference. But that's not the point. In 2010, there's an expectation (based on marketing of the "Full HD" phrase) that things that can't handle 1080p are inferior. The next-gen Apple TV needs to be fully 1080p capable for marketing success.

And that's a great point, assuming Apple does what is expected of them.
You know they could always leave out a feature like that for next years model in case it's just not ready yet, or otherwise.

 

[fpnc]

...What puzzles me is how does Apple get the isp's to play ball assuming the movie industry does too? These are in large part the same folks not so happy about losing their criminal cable tv legal monopolies (I know, bad writing)...Or hey maybe the Apple fat pipe is the answer.

I don't think speed throttling is really a widespread issue -- the threat of net neutrality regulations has the ISPs being somewhat careful about the steps they take. However it's certainly true that bandwidth limitations here in the U.S. are part of the problem. Until a good portion of iTunes customers have reliable and robust connections that can support at least 10Mbps video streams we probably won't see much high-quality 1080p over the internet. It will probably be more than five years before we get anything near majority support for such speeds here in the U.S.

 

[ceraz]

If they do anything, they have to put HD in the box. I'm not talking about 720p but 1080p.

1080p is mainstream ... I'm not just talking BluRay, I'm talking about Full HD AVCHD camcorders.

SJ presented the AppleTV as the end of DVD players and discs ... I agree. But DVD is no longer the standard, HD is.

I'm not really interested in playing illegally ripped HD MKVs but I'd love to be able to edit my HD footage on the Mac and then be able to play my HD movie on AppleTV without any resolution loss!!

Unfortunately, AppleTV is tied to iTunes and we're not close to seeing mass 1080p streaming over the net.

 

[kiranmk2]

This is an awesome idea - and one that also sums up Apple's major problem. Apple still seems to tie media to one person. Sure, when people were getting into iPods and digital cameras it made sense as people were just finding out about these things (and the buyers tended to be quite young). Now however, we've all had a chance to use digital media everyday and whole families have built up collections. What we really need is for a complete overhaul of the way "personal" computers and media is handled. There needs to be a large harddrive somewhere with all the media on it: music, movies, photos, books etc. Then individual clients pull the data as needed. Data can be archived either by RAID (for harddrive failures), external storage (that can be kept off-site for security) and, one day, cloud backup.

If you look at what happens now with Apple's main media programs:

iPhoto - Albums should be something people can browse through at leisure, but the current iPhoto assumes all the photos are yours only

iTunes - Yes, we've got home sharing and watch folders, but these are fairly clunky and don't do what you want. The other thing is syncing iPods - the files you want to sync have to be in your library, not a shared library.

Of course, this is doable today if the "harddrive" is a mac/pc running iTunes and iPhoto etc but these are too expensive/complicated/over the top for most people.

An expandable base unit of some sort that runs server versions of all the media apps that is always on and can be quicly woken from a low-power state followed by related versions of the desktop software (iTunes X) could enable this. The A4 chips seems to make this a possibility, but we haven't heard any rumours of a media server for ages.

One scenario I hadn't considered when I wrote the OP was that Apple could eliminate the middle man -- AppleTV -- altogether.

All those iPhones, iPod Touches and iPad's already in users hands have become an individual's personal entertainment device, as unique as the owner. What is missing is a link to the big screen, not an entirely new content box.

If Apple were to introduce a sort of AirTunes for both video and audio in iPhone OS4 and sell a small receiver that you could plug into the HDMI of any TV, this would enable the huge existing user base of iPhones, iPod touches and iPads to push the content of their devices to the big screen.

A scenario:
Mom, Dad, Timmy and Sally all have their own iPhones and iPod Touches with their personal tastes and personalities reflected in those libraries. There's also a family iMac and an iPad.

Timmy and Dad are sitting on the couch watching a TV show episode that Dad just purchased on his iPhone. When he pressed play on his iPhone, he selected "Living Room TV" as the output source.

Technical note: Because content is no longer stored on any given device, and instead in the Lala cloud -- now called iTunes Cloud -- the iPhone only sent the instructions to the small device plugged behind the TV which is now streaming it from the cloud. The iPhone isn't doing any heavy lifting.

Sally walks in and thinks that the star of the TV show is kinda cute so she pulls out her iPod Touch, opens the new TV app to see what's playing on the TV and brings up the credits of the TV show now playing. She finds the name of the actor, does a Wikipedia search and finds out he's from their town!

Sally: Look Dad, Trent Cutie is from Springfield!
Dad: I thought I recognized him. What other tv shows or movies has he been in?

On her iPod Touch, with Safari running, Sally brings up the new iPhonesOS 4.0 Screen Push feature and sends the feed from her iPod Touch to the living room TV for everybody to see what she's browsing.

Mom walks into the living room with the iPad and asks what everybody wants for dinner. She opens the Jamie Kennedy's 20 Minute Meals app and pushes her screen to the living room TV as they all review some options.

They choose Lemon Herb Chicken and mom leaves with Timmy to make dinner. Dad resumes the TV show on his iPhone and him and Sally finish watching Trent Cutie's show on the living room TV.

 

[dynaflash]

Therefore, Apple needs to do the following:

1.) Hire at least two more good engineers and get the current Apple TV hardware to work with 30fps 720p video (that would be about a 25% improvement which might be possible with the current GPU/hardware).

It is capable. I've done it as a test. I had to hack my atv and manually install the movie (read: manually put the movie in as to bypass iTunes) but the stock atv software and hardware played it back just fine. As a side note I was using cabac in my settings so the cavlc official spec would only decode faster. Yes, it can playback 720p30.

 

[fpnc]

It is capable. I've done it as a test. I had to hack my atv and manually install the movie (read: manually put the movie in as to bypass iTunes) but the stock atv software and hardware played it back just fine. As a side note I was using cabac in my settings so the cavlc official spec would only decode faster. Yes, it can playback 720p30.

That's good to know, thanks for the update.

However, we don't know whether the thermal envelope would allow the Apple TV to play 720p30 all day long without burning out either the CPU or GPU. Before Apple could enable something like that they would have to test it under various conditions to make certain that unit failures didn't spike because of the likely higher temperatures caused by the greater load on the system. After all, one of the biggest complaints about the Apple TV is that it runs too "hot" (hot being a relative term and something that I don't worry too much about with my Apple TV).

Besides that, I suspect that the Apple TV is a pretty finely tuned system. What would happen if you were streaming a 720p30 movie from the iTunes Store (as a rental)? Could the CPU/GPU keep up with the stream or would there be possibilities of stuttering in the playback. My now three-year-old Apple TV seems to handle HD playback pretty well but I wouldn't say that it behaves in a way that suggests that it has plenty of CPU cycles to spare.

 

[CWallace]

Above all, the AppleTV needs a DVR and an OTA tuner.

But how many people in the US just watch OTA? And of those, how many actually time-shift content and therefore need DVR functionality?

If Apple is going to add a tuner+DVR (and the attendant costs) to the tv, they might as well make it a CableCard device with a subscription service so you can replace your TiVo or cable company provided box.

In the United States of America it is illegal (to copy a DVD while circumventing DCSS), outside of the USA it is mostly fine

I wish people would remember that the US laws of ripping don't apply outside the US lol

Well a significant amount of content comes from companies with their primary operations in the United States (read - Hollywood) and since Apple needs their support, they're not going to cross them, so it's kind of a moot point.

 

[Tilpots]

But how many people in the US just watch OTA? And of those, how many actually time-shift content and therefore need DVR functionality?

If Apple is going to add a tuner+DVR (and the attendant costs) to the tv, they might as well make it a CableCard device with a subscription service so you can replace your TiVo or cable company provided box.

OTA TV is available to the vast majority of American households. Most are not using it because they already have cable or satellite. The AppleTV in its current form is a supplemental device. For it to be useful to the masses, it needs to replace their cable/satellite subscriptions. A tuner and DVR would provide users an alternative to cable/satellite. The iTMS could provide the a la carte programming choice most feel are lacking from their current situation. It would save viewers money without sacrificing content. Local, live news and sports would be available.

Cable and satellite companies would be the competition. Hence the reason to not include a CableCard. The AppleTV owners would save money while Apple makes money from the hardware and the iTMS store purchases. It's a win-win situation. Even the content distributors would make more money from the deal. Most cable channels receive less than a dollar per month per subscriber for 24/7 access. When people buy the show thru the iTMS, they could make more money from individual purchases.

 

[Mach1.8]

OTA TV is available to the vast majority of American households. Most are not using it because they already have cable or satellite. The AppleTV in its current form is a supplemental device. For it to be useful to the masses, it needs to replace their cable/satellite subscriptions. A tuner and DVR would provide users an alternative to cable/satellite. The iTMS could provide the a la carte programming choice most feel are lacking from their current situation. It would save viewers money without sacrificing content. Local, live news and sports would be available.

Cable and satellite companies would be the competition. Hence the reason to not include a CableCard. The AppleTV owners would save money while Apple makes money from the hardware and the iTMS store purchases. It's a win-win situation. Even the content distributors would make more money from the deal. Most cable channels receive less than a dollar per month per subscriber for 24/7 access. When people buy the show thru the iTMS, they could make more money from individual purchases.

As a HTPC fan, I would welcome such additions to the TV. I highly doubt we're ever going to see anything like that from though. While I LOVE the concept of a HTPC (which is basically what you describe) I'm pragmatic enough to know that my hobby is not for the masses. As much as us enthusiasts love the idea, it is and shall remain a niche. doesn't deal in niche products. Most folks are content with their cable company DVR...which is why TiVo is in a survival struggle. But, I've been wrong before...just ask my wife

 

[Tilpots]

As a HTPC fan, I would welcome such additions to the TV. I highly doubt we're ever going to see anything like that from though. While I LOVE the concept of a HTPC (which is basically what you describe) I'm pragmatic enough to know that my hobby is not for the masses. As much as us enthusiasts love the idea, it is and shall remain a niche. doesn't deal in niche products. Most folks are content with their cable company DVR...which is why TiVo is in a survival struggle. But, I've been wrong before...just ask my wife

Yeah, I got tired of waiting for this feature in the AppleTV so I put together a Mac Mini HTPC. It's great. I've canceled cable and saved myself $100 per month. I also love having my computer hooked up to my TV. Safari, iTunes, iPhoto and Mail amongst other programs are great from the couch. While I agree most folks would rather not go this route, I think Apple is about the only company that could really put together a unique HTPC type experience with the AppleTV. I don't think it would be a full fledged computer like the Mini. It would be a bit scaled down to just perform the basic functions of an HTPC experience. A DVR and tuner are crucial to this role, so without it, will always just serve a small niche of potential buyers. But give people a worthy competitor to cable and satellite, and you've got yourself a device with mass appeal.

 

[dynaflash]

However, we don't know whether the thermal envelope would allow the Apple TV to play 720p30 all day long without burning out either the CPU or GPU. Before Apple could enable something like that they would have to test it under various conditions to make certain that unit failures didn't spike because of the likely higher temperatures caused by the greater load on the system. After all, one of the biggest complaints about the Apple TV is that it runs too "hot" (hot being a relative term and something that I don't worry too much about with my Apple TV).

Besides that, I suspect that the Apple TV is a pretty finely tuned system. What would happen if you were streaming a 720p30 movie from the iTunes Store (as a rental)? Could the CPU/GPU keep up with the stream or would there be possibilities of stuttering in the playback. My now three-year-old Apple TV seems to handle HD playback pretty well but I wouldn't say that it behaves in a way that suggests that it has plenty of CPU cycles to spare.

That I can not answer definitively. But again I was (and always) use cabac on my atv encodes. Cabac is *much* harder to decode than the atv's actual spec of cavlc. Much more so than an additional 5 fps given the same entropy encoding. Also my atv has not had a fan in it since it failed two months ago. My guess is the current hardware *could* playback 720p30 just fine quite possibly on a consistent basis. Having said that maybe one reason they don't mess with it on this iteration is they have something hardware wise in the pipeline that makes it a moot point. Who knows.

 

[CWallace]

OTA TV is available to the vast majority of American households. Most are not using it because they already have cable or satellite. The AppleTV in its current form is a supplemental device. For it to be useful to the masses, it needs to replace their cable/satellite subscriptions. A tuner and DVR would provide users an alternative to cable/satellite.

But if a person already have a cable or satellite subscription, does that not imply that they desire to watch more than just the networks available OTA? And if all they care about is the networks, a pair of "rabbit ears" would perform the same function for a good bit less money.

As for the iTMS, I notice that a number of shows I watch (Mythbusters, How It's Made, The Universe Seasons 1 and 2, etc.) are not available in HD in the iTMS while they are on my cable system. iTMS also looks to be more expensive on an annual basis (though admittedly I would own the content).

That being said, I understand people's mileage may vary and my scenario is certainly not the only or perhaps even a common one.

 

[Tilpots]

But if a person already have a cable or satellite subscription, does that not imply that they desire to watch more than just the networks available OTA?

Yes, that's what that implies. But as I mentioned, the iTMS would be able to provide most of the other content.

And if all they care about is the networks, a pair of "rabbit ears" would perform the same function for a good bit less money.

Right, but without a DVR, you can't record a show and timeshift it. The people love their DVR!

As for the iTMS, I notice that a number of shows I watch (Mythbusters, How It's Made, The Universe Seasons 1 and 2, etc.) are not available in HD in the iTMS while they are on my cable system.

Assuming Apple did add the tuner and DVR and people dropped their traditional subscription services, the content producers would be more than willing to make up that lost revenue by adding their shows in HD to the iTMS store. I don't think Apple would have any problem with beefing up their catalog's selection.

iTMS also looks to be more expensive on an annual basis (though admittedly I would own the content).

This is where the competitive aspect comes in. For your viewing habits, would you really save money by switching to an iTMS consumption model (a la carte) or would the cable/satellite model (bundling) make more financial sense? It would completely be an individual household decision. But for the first time, you would truly have the choice.

(I want to mention that there would be no need for a separate computer with this set up either, as I envision it. I see this as another big problem for the AppleTV, both cost and practicality wise.)

That being said, I understand people's mileage may vary and my scenario is certainly not the only or perhaps even a common one.

Yup. YMMV. I just think Apple would want in on all those billions of dollars households spend on cable/satellite programming. If adding a simple tuner and DVR would cut in to that revenue stream, even a little, the payoff would be enormous.

 

[dmm219]

I think you are all way ahead of yourselves here. There is a 95% chance than Google TV took Apple completely by surprise. If thats the case, they aren't even close to ready to announce anything...they will have to scramble over the summer and maybe get something rushed out in the fall.

Apple has completely dropped the ball in this space...and it will bite them in the ass...

 

[mscriv]

The iTMS could provide the a la carte programming choice most feel are lacking from their current situation. It would save viewers money without sacrificing content. Local, live news and sports would be available.

While I agree with your premise and would like to see this happen the model is not ready when it comes to sports. Part of what makes cable/satellite so successful is the the variety of sports available on subscription channels like ESPN, Fox Sports, VS., HBO, Showtime, Pay Per View, NFL Network, etc. etc. The thing with sports is that not everyone is a local fan. That's why the special sports packages like NFL Sunday Ticket and others are extremely popular. Apple would have to broker sports content deals of their own to make this model successful.

 

[ipedro]

I think you are all way ahead of yourselves here. There is a 95% chance than Google TV took Apple completely by surprise. If thats the case, they aren't even close to ready to announce anything...they will have to scramble over the summer and maybe get something rushed out in the fall.

Apple has completely dropped the ball in this space...and it will bite them in the ass...

dmm219, while you may be right, Steve Jobs has proven again and again that his keen ability at futurecasting puts Apple years ahead of the competition which has allowed 1 Infinite Loop to set the standard that others follow.

To somebody who was just moderately following Google's recent moves, it was becoming obvious that they would launch into the living room sooner or later. To Jobs, who's focusing a lot of his time in beating Google, this was absolutely clear.

YouTube rentals at the beginning of this year were a major tell-tale indication which simply confirmed all the earlier hints.

With that knowledge, it's natural to expect that Apple has either a prototype or a fully functioning AppleTV 2 ready to drop should Google (or anybody else) set the stage for battle in this arena.

Further, considering that it's been since October 29 of last year that 3.0 was released, the AppleTV team (however small they are) were already working on 4.0 since before then.

Steve may want to announce an upgrade at All Things D next week as an answer to all the media attention Google has been getting with GoogleTV or he may wait for just before GoogleTV's launch in October to crowd them out of the news with the launch of AppleTV 4.0 and new hardware.

 

[Tilpots]

While I agree with your premise and would like to see this happen the model is not ready when it comes to sports. Part of what makes cable/satellite so successful is the the variety of sports available on subscription channels like ESPN, Fox Sports, VS., HBO, Showtime, Pay Per View, NFL Network, etc. etc. The thing with sports is that not everyone is a local fan. That's why the special sports packages like NFL Sunday Ticket and others are extremely popular. Apple would have to broker sports content deals of their own to make this model successful.

Yeah, I agree that sports is tricky. I'm a huge fan myself. But I've been able to watch every event that I've wanted to so far. Sometimes the quality is awful though. The best thing out there right now is ESPN 3. It's got all kinds of games. I think MLB is doing it right by offering their solutions for internet viewing and I think if a device as I describe was released, it would lead the other major sport networks to fall in line. There is revenue to be made.

Most major games are played on the broadcast networks right now, anyway. ESPN 3 fills a huge void, and the quality is pretty darn good. I've used Justin.TV quite a bit to watch other sports, but the quality just isn't that good. The formation of the Big Ten Network and the like are in it's infancy so while they do stream games, some of it, especially for the big sports, is not available. I've yet to cross that bridge for college football. I think I should be able to watch a good deal on ESPN 3, but I don't know just yet.

I would love to see Apple enter in to streaming contracts with some of the major sports producers. The technology is there, we just need to show these guys there's money it.

 

[fpnc]

...My guess is the current hardware *could* playback 720p30 just fine quite possibly on a consistent basis. Having said that maybe one reason they don't mess with it on this iteration is they have something hardware wise in the pipeline that makes it a moot point. Who knows.

It's not completely a moot point since if the installed base can't be upgraded to 720p30 there is little chance that Apple will begin offering that resolution through the iTunes Store. That's one of the problems right now with some of the HD content on iTunes, it's being encoded at 960x540 or 960x720 because the Apple TV can't handle full 1280x720 at anything higher than 24fps (officially). Thus, content that is being produced at native frame/field rates of 25/50 or 30/60 can't be easily down sampled to 24fps.

This is also one of the reasons why I can't see Apple transitioning to 1080p content anytime soon, because they'd have to continue to support 720p24 for the six million or more current Apple TV customers (supporting both resolutions of HD would be a real logistical nightmare -- what if a user has both an "old" and "new" Apple TV -- would the downloads now have to come in three pieces -- standard definition for iPhones/iPods, 720p24 for the original Apple TV, and 1080p for the new Apple TV?). I can't really see that happening for downloads, so I suspect that 1080p will only become an option when the content is streamed to a single client with known capabilities (and then it will get whatever it can support). Besides that, I don't think that the content providers are going to rush into supporting 1080p downloads since that would compete directly with Blu-ray.

If Apple could upgrade the currently installed base to buttery-smooth 720p30 then I suspect that the Apple TV hardware would be good for another year or more (if need be). Then, all they would really need to do is keep updating the software (optimizations and feature tweaks) and find some way to solve the storage space issue. Frankly, I think the only reason why the USB port on the existing Apple TV has remained unused is that the content licenses with the studios don't allow Apple to store rental content on an unsecured external drive. The studios are probably afraid that someone will take a drive with dozens of HD movie rentals on it and find a way to remove the DRM. This external drive issue (if there is one) seems the likely reason why there is so much more HD material available on the Apple TV than there is on the Mac/PC (since the Mac/PCs have the same issue with the potential for the pirating of the content).

 

[dynaflash]

It's not completely a moot point since if the installed base can't be upgraded to 720p30 there is little chance that Apple will begin offering that resolution through the iTunes Store. That's one of the problems right now with some of the HD content on iTunes, it's being encoded at 960x540 or 960x720 because the Apple TV can't handle full 1280x720 at anything higher than 24fps (officially). Thus, content that is being produced at native frame/field rates of 25/50 or 30/60 can't be easily down sampled to 24fps.

Oh, I am in agreement, I would totally support full itunes 720p30 tranfer to atv. In fact it would make hb's atv preset much easier since I would not have to implement the bogus 540p restriction on it to accomodate 30 fps. That being said its only a software upgrade away.

To the point of apple/jobs being surprised by google tv. That is kinda hard to imagine. I suspect they were not sure exactly how it would play out. But to be sure ... jobs and co. knew something was coming down the pipe.

My delusional guess is now that they have seen it (sort of) fleshed out they have a better handle on what the competition is offering. Hopefully they respond in kind (more importantly much better). Again ... only time will tell.

In the end it will be imho, content and user interface (not in that particular order).

Let the games begin ....